Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Dr V S Prasanna Rajan

Order issued by the Tamilnadu Information commission to provide information on the enforcement of the departmental mechanism to monetarily compensate those assessees who are harassed due to the tortious actions of the public servants

Recommended Posts

Dr V S Prasanna Rajan

With reference to the title mentioned above, enclosed herewith this post, an attached file bearing the file name - TNSIC direction for compensation for tortious actions of officials.pdf- consisting of 7 pages, wherein the Information commission directed the department of commercial taxes to provide the information as mentioned in the subject.

 

I guided the applicant / second appellant in framing the RTI application, first appeal and Second Appeal.

 

The Tamil Nadu Information commission directed the Department of Commercial Taxes to provide information for paras.8 to 12 listed in the RTI application.

 

The crucial impact of the order is with respect to the information for para.11 mentioned in the RTI application attached with the order, which covers the aspect mentioned above.

TNSIC direction for compensation for tortious actions of officials.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr V S Prasanna Rajan

The information requested in para.11 mentioned in the RTI application so referred to in my previous post has a judicial backing in the sense that - the Supreme court of India in RAJENDRA NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs.STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT10/04/1980 held that - In the absence of any legislation on the subject executive instructions can be issued in those areas where state has legislative competency.

 

Hence, the executives have to provide the instructions so issued to all the departments to deal with the aspect of monetary compensation to all harassed public solely on account of tortious acts of public officials which was the subject matter of information requested in para.11 of the RTI application mentioned in the previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Well Done Hon. VSPrajan. Such constructive advises and decisions encourage applicants and atleast gives a hope that every thing is not done away with. (Hon.Karira says that except funeral pyre and chanting Ram nam saya hi, RTI is almost on ventilation)

Surprise thing is that members are not having good impression on TNIC and your efforts changed the type of decisions)

Sorry, I could not find that decision as extraordinary as except ordering for providing information free of cost, no compensation or penalty was imposed. However, I am happy to note that when the application was filed in Mar,15, Decision came in Oct, 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr V S Prasanna Rajan

Strictly speaking, the decision is cryptic, and as rightly observed, that no compensation was provided and no penalty was imposed by the benevolent Information Commissioner !

 

Actually I was supposed to attend the hearing for the second appeal in person, and the appellant had specifically requested a prior notice for the same!

 

The appellant also mentioned specifically that I would attend the hearing for the second appeal on his behalf!

 

I do not know the reasons why the information commission did not provide an opportunity for me to present my arguments!

 

I would have at least ensured the issue of notice to the erring PIO if an opportunity of personal hearing was provided by the Information commission!

 

Actually, the Information commission in its order, directed the Department of Commercial Taxes in Salem, Tamil Nadu to provide the information !

 

Instead the commission should have directed the application to be forwarded u/s 6(3) of the RTI act, 2005 to the O/o The Principal Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Tamil Nadu !

 

However, I am again pursuing the issue of compensation for the public due to the tortious act of public officials, through RTI with the O/o The Principal commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tamil Nadu whose decision affects the entire state , and I hope that this time If I get a notice of hearing for second appeal, I will ensure that either the erring PIO is penalized or a mechanism to compensate the public due to the tortious act of commercial tax officials, is made applicable for the entire state of Tamil Nadu!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy